Fox News 9 p.m.

Fox News is running a one-hour special on climate tonight at 9 p.m. (which is being re-aired on Wednesday, I think.)

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I was interviewed in Toronto by Fox News when they were in Toronto for the Munk Debates (Dec 1) – Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg v George Monbiot and Elizabeth May (Green Party of Canada leader). It’s my understanding that they will be using some of this footage in one of the segments of the program tonight.

They were extremely well prepared for the interview to say the least, even being acquainted with as small a nuance of the debate as the Starbucks Hypothesis. I suspect that I’m going to look pretty weary in the interview – I was in the process of going through the Climategate Letters, which are discourging even for third party readers.

I think that the producers are trying to make the show more nuanced than the usual effort in this field (on either side). Not an easy task.

You are confusing the opinion shows with the news gathering operation.
Would you consider it “biased” or neutral that the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, ABC) did not cover ANY of the climate hack (climategate) story at all for 12-days? Perhaps that is the reason why Fox News viewership triples or 10x that of the other cable nets during the evening.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University examined network news coverage both during last years election and after President Obama took office. They found FOX News was the most fair and Balanced. The only reason FOX gained this distinction was the other networks were so pro-Obama.

So, Andrew, which do you prefer, a network that investigates the facts with some nuance, or one that gives the “appearance of neutrality?” The whole Climategate episode is rooted in the deliberate hiding of information for the sake of appearance, perhaps because the gatekeepers adopted the practices of most of the networks. If any of them is willing to go beyond the soundbite, that’s a good thing regardless of the political leanings.

Several others have already replied to refute you on this point, but I’ve got to add that if you watch Fox News you will get both sides. The fact that Fox doesn’t give just the liberal side is why you hear about how “ideological” they are.

Steve has already noted (twice already) that Fox was very well prepared for the interview, much more so than the other news organizations (in his first comments about it), and that comes as no surprise to me. I think you should consider that fact vs. what might be a bias on your part. If you’re looking for the most thorough and unbiased coverage of AGW and Climategate on TV, your only other source may be the Russian TV station that has done some excellent reports.

Andrew – Nixon’s “modified limited hangout” didn’t work very well either in Watergate. So give it up. What is mostly likely here is a relatively small group of disproportionately influential researchers funded and corrupted by 100’s of millions of dollars of grants and subsidies hijacking science along with the all important predictive computer models, and this now has very high odds of being the biggest scientific scandal in history.

I watched the Fox report on the Climate Issue. It was excellent!!! It was well a balanced coverage of this complex topic. I wish our other news outlets would cover this issue in more detail… In fact, it lead me to the climateaudit.org web site…which is awesome…

Mr. McIntyre would have been better approaching a network that is unbiased?

Do you have a suggestion, Andrew?

BBC?
CBC?
NBC?
CBS?
ABC?
CNN?
MSNBC?

I don’t see one in the above list that qualifies as descended from angels.

The argument is laughable.

Steve: I didn’t “approach” anyone. I was asked to participate and did. I was also asked to participate in segments by CNN and did. In each case, I tried to do the best that I could, but I’m not experienced at this sort of thing.

I’ve been watching all the coverage every day – live here in the UK or youtubed plus print news/blogs since Climategate broke – must be a couple of hundred hours of my life already.

Fox has done a great job of covering it as has Russia Today [what a bizarre irony that is].

The BBC ignored it for almost two weeks [given that one of their own weathermen had the bones of the story in mid-Oct but was squashed] and then only in embarrassment when they were flooded with listeners/viewers saying Eh?

TBH, I’ve been influenced by the MSM into believing that Fox was only for Uni Bomber types – I’ve really changed my view.

Steve – I linked to a couple of interesting articles [one by Tim Ball and another to a 1990 tv documentary on the lack of evidence for AGW] on the last thread and they’ve been stuck in moderation for several hours.

Tried emailing you at the address in sidebar but that came back as undeliverable too.

Steve: Dunno. But these sorts of things have little to do with Climategate.

Excellent to hear you’re a convert after watching Fox’s Climategate coverage. There’s a reason they are the most watched cable news network by a large margin.

I’ve also seen a couple of the Climategate reports by the Russian station and I was quite impressed. Very thorough and impartial. (I concur on how ironic that is.) Let’s hope the Fox special is equally well done.

>> Steve: what I meant to convey was that it was that much more discouraging for me.

I guess you really assumed and hoped that that all of this was some kind of misunderstanding. To me, I thought your insistence on the presumption of innocence was a strategy for the appearance of neutrality, since I thought this level of naivety was unlikely.

I understood what these guys were all about from day 1, since there can be no evidence for something impossible. Climategate was not discouraging to me, it was encouraging to have the truth revealed.

To those who claim that Fox News has a bias, you forget that in order to be an example of bias, there has to be an element of falsehood. It’s altogether possible, but please support your claim with an example.

Obama: The sun shall not rise until next week
Fox: Dispite Obama’s claim, the sun will rise tomorrow morning
CNN: Science deniers dispute the facts established by the consensus

My point is that good journalism is determining objective truth and reporting it, not averaging opinions, and reporting an obvious falsehood. By this standard, FNC is less biased.

Thia thing will drip and drip, as Pat Michaels said the other night whatever comes out of Climategate there will be more transparency, and with that transparency will come public debate, and hopefully sanity. It would be great if the BBC or CNN got serious but I cannot see it for a while yet, if ever. The key will be what Sir Muir Russell comes up with in hia investigation into the CRU, in the tradition of British public servants he will no doubt be approaching it with a view to mitigating any damage to the Univesity, we don’t have Wegmans here in the UK. If he does decide that there have been shenanigans then you can look for the story on the MSM TV channels.

I’m not comfortable with Fox’s political views, but they can and frequently do present outstanding programs on news issues. One was the series they did on the Madoff affair. Panels of “victims” with intelligent discussion and good questions. NONE of the other networks including CBS and 60 Minutes could touch it.

Being as it is probably pre-taped, I would expect a fairly well “balanced” report. At least the format will enable those interviewed to expound a bit more without interruption. In other words, the editors will “polish” Steve’s segments making them more readily understood to a broader audience. IMHO, any exposure of what Steve has to say is good, regardless of format. No down side to this at all.

The issue of Climategate is not whether the emails were hacked, but rather what they show of data manipulation, suppression of articles which do not agree with the the Mann-Jones cabal, hijacking of the peer review process, and a perversion of the scientific method. Any news coverage which concentrates on the issues exposed by the leaked emails and data is welcome. I hope that this show show brings these issues to the forefront.

I think the focus on the emails, especially by the media (and CRU does this as well) is unfortunate, it takes the focus off the code that shows what was done. This part is a big part in determining how good the science is.

The emails mostly reflect on how these people acted in their various capacities, including motives, biases, and professional conduct. The defense against these aspects is basically “we don’t think anyone did anything wrong, but it doesn’t matter because the science is right (or the paper was published, …)”.

As many of those who have appeared on the BBC know to their cost a pre-taped programme can show you as saying whatever the producer wants you to say. Actually the one occasion that I did a taped item for BBC TV news, they cut my ten minute rambling interview by 80% and I was made to look brilliant (a very difficult task)- but then I was saying what they wanted me to say.

I’m looking forward to seeing it. I hope it will be possible to do so on the internet tomorrow.
If FOX really wants to do a public service by informing viewers, then this special report will solely focus on EXPOSING. Clearly there’s overwhelming evidence of serious wrongdoings and misleading behaviour in climate science. This needs to be aired once and for all.
I congratulate FOX for doing what the rest of the media has been too reluctant and lame to do. My feeling is that the AGW alarmists are not going to be pleased with it, as I expect their noses to be bloodied by this FOX report. Just my feeling.

CNN never gave Steve M time to speak unless his info and opinion could be immediately countered by a panel/somebody on the other side.

Al Gore and Michael Mann and the replacement for Phil Jones, however, all got uncountered interviews. Anderson Cooper rebroadcast a long pro-alarmist interview recently, too, and never had a single non-alarmist interview that was not countered that I saw.

If Steve M finally gets to speak his mind on network TV and not in sound bytes only, this is a good thing.

Concerning balance, FOX always invites both sides to the set. You don’t see that very often on other networks – especially here in Europe. We all know which side it is that dodges and bolts when asked to debate.

There is no need to depend on what “they” say about news sources. News sources are much easier to audit than climate science.

1. Wait for a news story that is sourced solely on a recently released document that is available in full text on the internet. Read the document in its entirety and make a judgment on its content.
2. On the same day check out the coverage of that story on the web sites for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. Take notes.
3. Rank the sources in order of accuracy in following the actual source document.
4. Repeat for other stories until you find a reliable trend.

After following that procedure a few times I will only seek new information on CNN and FOX. Your mileage may vary.

This is not on topic, so feel free to move or delete, but I’m frustrated and maybe someone here can help.

I posted a comment on RealClimate under “Unforced Variations” at 2:06. It is currently post #38, but this could change.

The post is about some additional changes potentially made to the climate record by Mann between the years 1840-1910. The reason I thought the post was important was edited out and not posted by Gavin.

Had Mann not excluded the warming during those years, found by others and also known to Mann, the 20th century warming might have been recognized as an extension of late 19th century warming. This could have impacted the AGW interpretation of the 20th century record.

Good luck Steve I hope they represent your intended meaning accurately.
However I think that it is unfair that you are expected to be a TV personality as well as an analyst / researcher. It takes a certain type of bravado and image awareness to come across well on the TV. Al Gore does it well until he opens his mouth.

Comment order depends on whether you are using the CA Assistant or not:

* If no CA Assist: ordered by “top level” (leftmost) comments. Most recent thread-starter at the end of the page
* With CA Assist: ordered by most recent comment anywhere in a thread. Most recently-updated thread at the end of the page.

If you watch Fox News before 9 pm, you’ll get the best news reporting in the U.S. right now.

Admittedly, that is not saying much, but there is more hard & factual reporting on Fox News than on any other TV news source.

I remember CNN’s climate special which went kinda like “OMG! OMG! We are all burning! End of the planet is nigh!”

Steve: Congratulations!. We will definitely watch the show tonight.

I remember seeing the hockey stick for the first time and thinking “no one could take this seriously”. I am sure a lot of other people had the same reaction but none of us had the tenacity you have displayed in the last few years.

snip
However, I am never so foolish as to simply take the reported story at face value. I only hope Steve, and others, are given time to place this story in scientific context. Given that I think the importance of the message would be clear to most viewers.

Actually, that was the Sunday Telegraph. Although part of the same group, the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are poles apart on climate change. The Daily Telegraph coverage has been strongly pro-AGW, with extremely biased and one-sided coverage. Having said that, I have detected some improvement, with some attempt at more balanced coverage. One of their top writers (Simon Heffer) has now declared himself a full AGW-sceptic, and another writer has come very close to that.
In contrast, the Sunday Telegraph is actually quite sceptical, having printed pieces by Christopher Monckton and Bob Carter. Yesterday the Telegraph had a full page article by Christopher Booker about Dr Pachauri, head of the IPCC. It turns out that Pachauri has *huge* vested interests in the climate change industry that has made him millions of dollars. One of his companies is in the process of shutting down the British steel works. They are doing this probably in order to make huge profits from carbon credits.
Chris

There are several more letters today (Mon 21), mostly expressing satisfaction with the failure of Copenhagen. One is from Dr David Bellamy, once ever-present on UK TV natural science shows but dropped by the BBC because of his AGW-scepticism. I agree that the Daily Telegraph in particular has taken a pro-AGW stance editorially, not least since giving Geoffrey Lean a half-page every Saturday, but letters and website comments usually display sceptical viewpoints. Yesterday’s letters to the Sunday Telegraph demolished the letter in last week’s edition from one Dr Williams of Reading University (and a Royal Society Research Fellow, no less) who wrote that debate of issues such as climate change is fine so long as it doesn’t challenge the concensus – I posted the letter in the CA Unthreaded thread.

One of the things I would like AGW proponents to be asked when they respond to climategate charges, that there are thousands of scientific papers that prove AGW, is what research they would point to that makes the strongest ’empirical’ case for a connection between CO2 and a high climate sensitivity. Their response has become a mantra that implies that there really are thousands of ‘climate scientist’ and that there are thousands of ‘peer reviewed’ papers that prove it. . . . . . not GCMs. They should be asked that question every time.

Monbiot pressed for specific answers to questions like “Has the temperature in the last decade declined?”

Ian skillfully played a version of “hide the decline”. He persistently refused to give a yes/no or a figure, saying that Monbiot had agreed he was not a scientist, inferred he would not understand the answer which in any case could not be given in a short sound bite.

Monbiot became flustered and it showed. So, maybe you might intimate at the start that you intend to answer some questions in the way that your interchanges with the IPCC formulation process were answered.

I watched that debate and I thought that Plimer came off very badly. Monbiots main charge through the piece was that Plimer refused to answer the question. It was very rude and annoying, but he did get his point across. While Plimer was correct, the overwhelming take away feeling was that he was being evasive.

Also interesting in that piece (it was on Lateline) was that Monbiot accused Plimer of ‘fabricating the Medieval Warming Period’. Perhaps someone should tell him it was actually in the earlier IPCC reports.

Thanks Ivan, just used that, though missed the first segment, only catching the last few words of Maurice Strong – very unusual to get him on the record at all. McIntyre, McKitrick and Michaels came across very well, even though I’m sure it was only a fraction of what they shot in Toronto. The overall balance, with the long segment on Lomborg and how money should be spent for the most impact, was also for me very good. North, Monbiot and Markey were given a fair chance to put their point of view. I’m not sure an hour could have been better used by a news program on the issue.

Monbiot pressed repeatedly for specific answers to questions like “Has the global temperature in the last decade declined?”

Ian skillfully played a version of “hide the decline”. He persistently refused to give a yes/no or a figure, saying that Monbiot had agreed he was not a scientist, inferred he would not understand the answer which in any case could not be given in a short sound bite.

Monbiot became flustered and it showed. So, maybe you might intimate at the start that you intend to answer some questions in the way that your interchanges with the IPCC formulation process were answered. Or with a borrow from Jones/Hughes “Why should I answer that when all you want it for is to criticise?”

I’ve been religiously reading your web site since the Climategate scandal broke. You had, and will continue to have an extraordinary impact on the freedom of humanity. You will never know your true import of your curiosity and efforts.

Having just re-read your November 2003 paper, I have a question. In the light of the credibility of the CRU temperature data sets and others, will you revisit your paper to challenge the “blade” of the hockey stick. Personally, I can’t believe the base data can be trusted.

watching the program on Fox now, it’s quite good and Steve is featured prominently.

You look less nervous and come across as an honest guy Steve. Loved the part where you say you don’t know if it’s a big medium or small problem. This will show people viewing that you are not agenda driven.

I’m watching the Fox News special now, and I can’t imagine that a reasonable person would find a bias in the presentation. The first person interview was Maurice Strong. The interview with McIntyre follows, with some clips of Patrick Michaels, and a statement that Michael Mann declined to be interviewed. There is a discussion of proxy data, with an explanation of how it relates to temerature. the next segment begins a discussion of the emails. Phil Jones, of course, declined to be interviewed.

So far this presentation seems to be very spot on in presenting all sides. The only problem I’ve seen so far is they implicitly link the MM mentioned in the email with McIntyre and McIntrick (sp) when the actual paper was Michaels and McIntrick. However, they did flas the heading of the paper on screen and you can read the Michaels and McIntrick in the name, and they only present Ross’s reaction to it, where he states it was a paper he wrote. Overall, there have been no falsifications, and a reasonable effort to leave open to the viewer to evaluate the information as presented, rather than showing a hard and fast line like many specials I’ve seen on NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. Definitely on par or better than a lot of CNN stuff I’ve seen as well.

Ross McKitrick not McIntrick… also noticed that the hide the decline stuff could have been misinterpreted – i do happen to have informed myself more than a good percentage of the viewership may have. I think a bit was lost in editing and keeping a “comprehensive” report under 1 hour, a somewhat impossible task. I’ve spent hours reading and exploring the various issues involved and still have somewhat limited understanding of its true complexity.

It was somewhat laughable to see the whole “glaciers are melting” thrown around as proof of how we’re destroying the world…

I’m watching it right now, and am pretty pleased on the whole. Intially, it seemed to tilt a bit towards us skeptics….but since the Team didn’t seize the opportunity to give their input..not our fault.
Mann’s and Jones’ failure to respond was in itself quite damning. You could tell Pat Michaels was pissed…. 🙂

If the other “news” outlets would follow suit and produce similar offerings.

Now we’re on to the economics of the issue and an interview with Bjorn Lomborg, and a discussion of the Copenhagen Consensus. Now they’re interviewing Monbiot, but they spend more time with Lomborg, discussing relative investment returns.
(A note about Strong: he admits that he has investments in carbon trading companies in the course of his interview.)

Now we’re on to Waxman-Markey, and an interview with Ed Markey, D Mass.
Steven Hayward, from the American Enterprise Institute, points out that W-M would take us back to emission levels that existed in about 1913. What follows is a discussion of carbon trading. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute discusses the results of carbon trading in Europe.

James Inhofe is interviewed. He predicts “zero chance” of passing Kerry Boxer.

Now, we see Lisa Jackson announcing EPA control of CO2 emissions.
The rest is inconsequential, including Obama’s address in Copenhagen.

The thing with Fox is that they do have a lot of Conservative/Libertarian commentators, however they keep them seperate from their news division. Example at 5pm you have Beck, at 8 O’Reilly and at 9 Hannity (all times EST). However at 7pm is a straight news show where they just tell you the news that has happened in a one hour show. At 6pm Monday thru Friday they have a combo show. From 6 to about 6:40 they have reports from their correspondents and for the last 20 minutes they basically have the old style PBS panel roundup on the days news.

Better that what I saw on CNN. I got the impression that Campbell Brown and John Roberts couldn’t get their heads around the context. Roberts professed to have studied it for days but was almost non-existent in the segments I saw. The issue that bothers me most in all except this Fox show was the lack of challenge to the “peer-reviewed” literature defense. They just don’t seem to get that the whole objective was to game the process to get the Team in and everyone else out.

P.S. I reviewed the CNN interview of Gore earlier. John Roberts was notably pathetic in any challenges the same old set of exaggerations and dismissals. You would think someone who had studied climategate for several days would at least find a challenging question for Gore

Brown missed a huge opportunity to boost her sagging ratings. I suspect Paula Zahn would have been tougher. The problem, however, may be Brown’s producer putting her on a short leash.

Not one CNN reporter has distinguished himself or herself on Climategate. They all have the same weak opinions and weak reporter’s instincts.

Their attempts at mind control are so pre-Internet it’s funny. The irony is they try to act so hip with their Twitter stuff etc. yet they virtually ignore the biggest Internet-based scandal in history.

They hide the decline of environmental extremism so well they must make Michael Mann proud.

Very good show. Baier did a good job with the questions. Trying to ask questions that would inform the viewer rather than loading them from a specific perspective.

Both Steve and Ross came across well. Not being distracted by having to listen through an ear-piece probably helped. I think being taped instead of live also helped by allowing more time to form a response.

I figured they would invite Mann and maybe Jones and they did. Not much of a surprise they declined.

To alot of people the complete absence of the Team to not show up on the special, particulary Mann since he seems to pop up everywhere else, while Steve, Ross and Pat Michaels sit down and answer the questions really makes the team look bad and have something to hide. Also what I liked was that the Alarmists couldn’t sit there and just rant scare tactics and you got to compare Lomborg to Monbiot. Monbiot a journalist versus a former Greenpeacer that has 4 Nobel prize winners backing him up hmmm hard choice :).

Overall seemed a very good piece and was about right for what the amount of time they had. What it might do is get some people to start looking for answers. The interview couldn’t go indepth on everything but it will wet the appettite for people that want to find out more. An example of this was Fox showed how Steve was able to get NASA to change tunes so that shows he is not a crank. They also show that there was a problem with the Hockeystick graph but not indepth. They also showed Steve’s web address so those that want to find out what happened will show up to find out.

Just watched the Fox piece. Steve you did a great job! The interview format is certainly easier than the “live, you get two soundbites” format.

Overall, the piece was well done, with a few minor bits inaccurate. Quite interesting that Mann, Jones, and no others involved wanted to be included. It did cover the skeptic side well, but wasn’t overly biased.

For the record, I read MSNBC and Foxnews and try to figure out what’s really happening. Yes, Fox does have some far right leaning shows, but this was well done.

I’m still a bit shocked that it took a MONTH for any MSM outlet to run a full length story on this topic. But yes, it finally happened. A month ago when Climategate broke, I told my wife, “This is big!”. I don’t think she really believed me until tonight.

George Monbiot commented about how ‘frightening’ the retreat of glaciers is, together with a few pictures to highight the issue, this is an all too common sesationalist ploy. Surely glaciers have advanced and retreated throughout history, this demonstration shows no link to manmade CO2 but its convincing to those who don’t think and I suspect they’re in the majority.

One of the questions never asked of someone like Monbiot when they point to such things is: if the world cuts carbon emissions as you say it should, how soon would the glaciers start to grow back? Would all of them do so? Can you prove it? Which scientists back you up on that?

Unless I missed something, we don’t have a clue that they would grow back, even if went back to 1800 levels of carbon emissions. The absence of such challenges from journalists, right across the board, for those advocating massive changes for mankind, is the sore point for me.

McIntyre stood out from everyone else, because he didn’t claim to know. Good man. That’s what the science says.

My understanding of glaciers is that the last great glacier building period happened during the little ice age and that the snout ice of many receding glaciers matches that time. I’ve not found anything in any of the science that guarantees glaciers are permanent fixtures. We have miles of beautiful glacial valleys and terminal moraines here in Washington state and all up and down the Pacific coast as indicators of their comings and goings. And of course our scablands are a product of glacial lake bursts – a rather predictable and cyclical event.

I guess my point is I’d be very surprised that glaciers don’t recede given the continuing progression away from the last great ice advance and the little ice age. BTW, my idea of warming is what put the entrance to the Cosquer Cave 37M under water. That represents true climate change and what do you know, we all survived.

I enjoyed the Fox report Steve. I am sure you said more that fell on the cutting room floor, but all in all you got several good points across. Having read CA for several years now, I believe they represented well your sense of the state of Climate Science. If additional opportunities present themselves, please don’t hesitate.

Re what I did see: Markey looked tired to me. The events of the past two months haven’t changed his message, but I sense that he understands that the battle just turned and it might be uphill from here on out.

The House passed its bill, but the Senate did not. Then the leak of the emails and data occurred. Markey knows that leak changed things utterly. His face betrayed what he was trying to portray, i.e., that he was still optimistic about passage of an all-encompassing bill to limit emissions.

I just watched the program and thought they did a pretty good job on the issues surrounding climate change. Mann and Jones, of course, either declined to be interviewed or did not respond. If I might speculate, their appearance would have been awkward while investigations about their conduct were being conducted. Then again, Mann did get his stuff published in WA-PO.

My disappointment in the program was that Markey got away with some pretty dumb arguments. The conclusion about the EPA going ahead with CO2 regulation come hell or highwater was accurate, and downright scary.

The surprise of the evening for me was that McKittrick seems to be so much younger that McIntyre. Sorry, Steve.

Steve: I know you are in the thick of things right now, but can I make a suggestion? The Fox coverage and the entire “climategate” is going to create (and probably is creating) a ton of interest in Climateaudit.org. I would consider highlighting whatever you think would be most impactful for the “newbie” in the upper left (under the “tipjar”).

I fall into this category, and the site is a bit overwhelming when you first show up. I found the ohio presentation to be a helpful item for a new/interested reader. I have also been following some of the recents posts. Anyway, I imagine you will get one chance with many casual readers, and a nice overview/guide to the Hockey stick / emails / hide the decline context / tree rings etc. would be fantastic.

Great job for both you and Ross. I watch Fox News and they definitely lean to the right, but the issue is not whether they are balanced so much as do they balance out all the other options.

I’ve been reading here for a few years and know what is going on and I am pretty sure tonight was the most Americans have heard about the debunking of the HS. So I think that was very important. It was certainly skewed toward the skeptic, but that brings the total to 999 to 1, methinks. And Steve, they did paint you as someone who is not sure if this is a big problem, medium problem, or a small problem by just giving you the brush and letting you do the painting. So that was a positive. They said here’s a math guy who just happens to find errors with big time papers and Aeronautical/Space groups who are apparently better at going to the moon than taking a global temp.

What this leak (Fox kept calling it a leak, fyi) did was to allow voices in research/media to say what was on their mind more without being labeled a fringe element. I’m glad that’s “settled”.

The FOX piece was designed strictly for the general population, in which case the producers had to assume that the individual who knows little to nothing about the CRU leak, the hockey stick, and our dear host, must be educated on the issues in one hour. I watched the whole thing from that point of view, and as an educator I thought that FOX did a wonderful job.

Steve, you came across as very convincing, definitely not shrill, and incredibly trustworthy. At the very least the one hour program will give those who weren’t informed a basic mental framework from where to start.

Whether intentionally or not, The Team came across as slippery and dodgy … but maybe that’s only because they like to play hockey.

Given that FOX is by far the most watched cable News network, the impact of the one hour may be enormous.

I had no idea that Ross and I would feature so prominently in this program. I was expecting our segment to be MUCH shorter – so the extent of coverage was certainly gratifying. But I’ve had enough ups and downs in life not to get too excited – though ups are sure better than downs.

I can detect Pete Holzmann’s hand in Fox’s editing of the Almagre photos – he must have pointed out my wife to the Fox editors; my wife was totally surprised.

My baseball cap in the Almagre photos was for B&R squash doubles – so that will be fun for me as well.

The interviewer and voiceover on the science segments was Eric Shawn, not Bret Baier. Baier only did the segues in this part.

Eric Shawn is an extremely sharp and competent reporter. You were fortunate, Steve, that he was the interviewer on this. I frankly do not believe that there is another major television news organization in this country that could, or would, do a special of this quality on this issue. We have to remember that most folks in the world, unlike long-time readers of this site, are only catching up on the problems associated with climate science.
Now, as VN (Bender?) said once, let us turn back to the poems (data).

This was a much better format for you than the other interviews you’ve done. They actually gave you time to explain yourself instead of just asking off the wall questions that don’t have simple answers.

Not related to Fox News program. Which I went out of my to watch. Pretty good, but highlighting Senator Imohofe will turn off many.
(But bless him for remaining one of the lone loud voices in the Senate calling for a sanity check.)

I accept that a Climate Change is happening but I am not alarmist about it. I remain a “skeptic” and seek clarification and facts. Climateaudit seems as good a source as any. But some writers seem to contradict what we see on TV.

Questions.

What is a good definitively link to status of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheet coverage in 2007 to 2009? Understanding that a couple of years don’t make a trend.

Temp change since 1999?
Some say still increasing. Others say decreasing.
A decade does not define a long term trend.

You can reach it from the University’s main website if you can be bothered finding the links.

Check out the charts for Arctic, Antarctic and Global sea ice cover. What they show is that there is almost not net change in global see ice over the past 30 years (which is as far back as their research goes as it relies in satellite imaging). As the arctic has shrunk, the antarctic has grown.

Here’s the global chart:

Whenever I am in an argument with someone over melting ice caps being the “canary in the coal mine”, I just point them to this chart. It says everything that needs to be said.

The graph that helped me the most on sea ice is Global See Ice Area from The Cryosphere Today at the University of Illinois, which I gather has a excellent reputation in this area. Not a lot to write home about it seems when you see the thirty year picture.

With regards to the earlier images on the Artic sea ice–does anyone know what that radial pattern close to the pole comes from? It’s in all the images through the end of 1986 and then it just disappears. They don’t have images for the first half of 1987, so I can’t tell exactly when it goes away.

The physicists will need to collaborate with statisticans, actually. Because tuning the toys that the physicists build is fundamentally a statistical exercise. And if these toys are being tuned to paleoclimatic data or instrumental data, then you’d best involve the paleoclimatologists and meteoclimatologists in some capacity. So I’d say you’re basically wrong.

Fox is the right network to highlight this issue, particularly in the states. Fox has better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined. They are the most fair and balance and are the only hope to take this to national coverage. I hope they continue with their coverage.

The only reason tonights show seemed a bit unbalanced is that those who feel the science is settled, won’t show up for the discussion.

Great job Steve. What is really needed is a 2 hour documentary covering the science behind the settled science.

Moderators: I had replied to jaffa Posted Dec 20, 2009 at 10:19 PM. It appeared for a while then disappeared. Nothing violating rules. Perhaps new threaded comment software? No big deal, if you edited fine, but just thought it might be a software glitch.

A long-forgotten scientific paper on temperature trends in New Zealand may be the smoking gun on temperature manipulation worldwide…

Now, a study published in the NZ Journal of Science back in 1980 reveals weather stations at the heart of NIWA’s claims of massive warming were shown to be unreliable and untrustworthy by a senior Met Office climate scientist 30 years ago, long before global warming became a politically charged issue.

The story is published in tonight’s TGIF Edition, and has international ramifications.

That’s because the study’s author, former Met Office Auckland director Jim Hessell, found a wide range of problems with Stevenson Screen temperature stations and similar types of unit.

Hessell debunked a claim that New Zealand was showing a 1C warming trend between 1940 and 1980, saying the sites showing the biggest increases were either urbanized and suffering from urban heat island effect, or they were faulty Stevenson Screen installations prone to showing hotter than normal temperatures because of their design and location.

One of the conclusions is that urbanized temperature stations are almost a waste of time in climate study:

“For the purpose of assessing climatic change, a ‘rural’ environment needs to be carefully defined. Climatic temperature trends can only be assessed from rural sites which have suffered no major transformations due to changes in shelter or urbanisation, or from sites for which the records have been made homogenous. Urban environments usually suffer continual modifications due to one cause or another.”

“It is concluded that the warming trends in New Zealand previously claimed, are in doubt and that as has been found in Australia (Tucker 1975) no clear evidence for long term secular warming or cooling in Australasia over the last 50 years [1930-1980] exists as yet.”

Hessell divided weather stations in New Zealand into two classes, “A” and “B”, where A class locations had suffered increasing urbanization or significant site changes, and B class locations had not.

“It can be seen immediately that the average increase in mean temperatures at the A class stations is about five times that of the B class”, the study notes.

Among the studies listed as a contaminated A site is Kelburn, which was at the heart of the NIWA scandal a fortnight ago.

I was disappointed that the AGW side did not have anybody with a science background.

While I agree with other posters that it would not have been appropriate to have Mann or Jones (or even Trenberth) due to their involvement with Climategate, I think it would have given piece a little more balance to have someone from the AGW side to defend (or at least explain) the hockey stick from their perspective.

Also, if FOX did seek someone beside Mann or Jones, it would have been interesting to hear their reason for declining the invitation.

good job steve. Just to let folks know. I have my chapters into Tom Fuller so that he can add his material and we can final edit and get to press. we are well over 150 pages. Your fox appearance reminded of on thing I had forgotten. I’m off for a couple days. Thanks again for everything.

IMO, Steve and Ross were great on FOX news. Cool, calm, and objective.

But I’m thinking the story was too complex for the average “know-nothing” (ie, those who haven’t heard a word, or a peep, of the story). The mixture of climate and temperatures and economics, the various points of view, the alarmism, the certainty, the uncertainty, the difficult-to-know, the huge numbers of players, the politics, the scientific method, etc. and more.

It is true (according to that great American poet, Emily Dickinson) that truth should not come too quickly, else it is blinding.

I’d like to remind folks of one reason Mann, Jones, and Schmidt would shy away from any moderately-paced news
presentation. It’s the CRU e-mails, which can be viewed with key word search through this site:

The ‘domain name bonus’ is well known in Search Engine optimisation circles. Basically, if your search phrase matches a domain name, that domain name will be shown either at or near the top of the results. So ‘real climate’ will always rank the real climate site highest. This ranking doesn’t necessarily transfer to other search phrases. It’s this reason that certain domain names are so valuable.

OT, but there is quite a lot of opinion around that Google is manipulating their search results. The mundane truth is much more likely to be that Google runs a highly complex, massively distributed system, and sharp changes in trends for new search terms (such as when a term like ‘climategate’ is coined) take a while to ripple through the system and settle down. While it’s true that Google certainly do have the ways and means to manipulate search results, remember that their number one priority is page views and returning accurate search results for a term. Their priority is to get you where your going, and hopefully get you to click on an ad on your way, and definitely don’t want you to go try another search engine.

Not related to Fox News program. Which I went out of my to watch. Pretty good, but highlighting Senator Imohofe will turn off many.
(But bless him for remaining one of the lone loud voices in the Senate calling for a sanity check.)

I accept that a Climate Change is happening but I am not alarmist about it. I remain a “skeptic” and seek clarification and facts. Climateaudit seems as good a source as any. But some writers seem to contradict what we see on TV.

Questions.

What is a good definitively link to status of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheet coverage in 2007 to 2009? Understanding that a couple of years don’t make a trend.

Great job by Steve & Ross, but I disagree about the AGW Science expert omission weakness. The principal scientists DECLINED to respond says it all…

Brett and his team did a good job too, covering a lot in one hour. He did confuse the M&M ClimateGate e-mail distinction, which Ross spoke to. All of us know the difference between the 2 M&M teams publishing at that time — warmers have so careless in mixing up same.

Congratulations Steve, you were credible and measured in your comments.

Michael Mann on the other hand, by electing not to appear on the show has turned his damaged reputation into a train wreck.

I am a statistician and new to this debate. Up until 6 months ago, I had been swallowing AGW theory because I was unaware of the contradictory science; or that there was even a contradictory opinion.

Its only because I happened upon a blog in the Herald Sun (Australia) newspaper that I became aware of the flaws in the AGW theory. Since then, I have buried myself in researching the science.

It seems to me, the momentum on this subject is rapidly changing and the fact that FOX News would dedicate an hour long program to presenting a balanced view of the two sides of this argument would support this.

What I think we all want is openness, transparency and genuine scientific debate on this most important matter.

Egos and reputations are irrelevant. Unfortunately, reading through the climategate email, all I see is bunch of people trying to bolster their egos and protect their reputation; thereby losing all objectivity.
Steve: it’s only one line of evidence and does not bear directly on arguments from physics. So don’t go a bridge too far,

Steve, I to think you did good job on the Fox segment. Just one question, this is the second TV appearance where you state you believe in global warming (a.k.a climate change)-will you let your readers know what your belief is based on? Is it the last ten years, the last 150 years, is it relative to the MWP? How is your belief consistent with the original IPPC 1997 report or even the now debunked AR4 report? Inquiring mind want to know.

Steve the segment on Fox was great, but it barely scratches the surface of all the work you’ve done. You need to get together with a documentarian to film step by step all the issue’s you’ve covered on your blog. You would be able to have cut aways showing your emails, the responses over the years from the Hockey team and the various institutions (and once and for all put to rest to any claim that the Hockey team was cooperating in any way, but rather engaged in deceit and deception from the get go) and show graphically on the screen exactly what your work has revealed with concern to these Hockey team papers.

While agreeing with the sentiment I don’t think the next documentary should try to deal with all the issues covered on Climate Audit(!). Next time a bit more depth on the enchanted larch in Yamal, on the Hockey Stick, on ‘hiding the decline’ and (crucially) on the implications for the IPCC process would I think be a significant help for the man in the street to decide: Who do I trust of these guys?

It’s only one line of evidence, as Steve says above. Even so, it’s a major piece of the controversy over Climategate so it deserves even better treatment. But step at a time. Fox has set the standard and people are going to have to get over their blind hatred of the brand – they produce The Simpsons as well as Glenn Beck, don’t forget – and step up to the mark themselves.

Is Gerry North ever lame. Parrotting that line about a “trick” being a “clever thing to do”. What would have been more clever, guys, would be to “hide the decline” and not yap about it in your emails. And they call skeptics “idiots” …

Willis Eschenbach picked up this particular strand in the CRUtape letters in When Results Go Bad on Watts Up With That on 29 Nov 09, leading to his big questions about the extraordinary ‘adjustments’ to Darwin Zero on 8 Dec – which was simply the first station listed in Northern Australia, an area Professor Karlen had drawn his attention to, with some help from the UEA whistleblower.

I haven’t seen anything from the good professor directly since Climategate broke but, like you, I’d be very interested.

I saw the special. You did a great job! Your global warming “beliefs” do not need vetting.

On the other hand, I have to point out – I’ve kept quiet so far – that you’ve been remiss. You’re readers have every right to know; and, if you don’t come clean soon, they will demand to know. So, for the sake of your credibility and the continued survival of this blog, which is it: boxers or briefs?

As I suspected, I think the Team took one on the nose, if not on the chin. Mann and others’ refusal to appear in combination with the tree ring background and e-mails looked quite damning. Steve looked far more effective at FOX then he did at CNN, where they had set up their little ambush. Who watches CNN anyway!
I also found Lomborg quite compelling on the economic aspects.
Here, the German sceptic sites have begun linking to this FOX Special.

Well, I watched the entire show with my wife and younger son and have to say, I thought Fox did an excellent job on this. And Steve, you (and the other “M”) were also were great.

As I follow your work and this climate issue, I am sort of reminded of the story of David and Goliath. Of course, there are a few more “Davids” to this story (for example, the other “M”) but there are also more than one Goliath (i.e., GISS, CRU, IPCC, etc.). And yes, I know you’re not trying to take down these groups, you’re just curious as to how they are getting their results.

All I want is the truth and ALL of the data, code, reports, etc. available for independent review before we sign some damn treaty.

There is a very simply way to quantify the bias on a TV or radio station and I don’t know why everyone doesn’t use it. It is called the ‘Interruption Coefficient’. The interviewer will invariably, perhaps unconsciously, let a speaker talk if he/she likes what the speaker is saying, and inevitably interrupt more if the speaker is saying things that the interviewer doesn’t like.

You can establish the Interruption Coefficient timing the interview and then counting the numnber of interruptions. Divide the second number (minutes) by the first. Imaging Al Gore and (say) Sarah Palin) being interviewed on AGW. Gore would be allowed to talk much longer than Palin on most channels. He would also be treated with much softer questioning than Palin. Imagine he talked for 5 minutes. Do you think he would be interrupted more than four times? I doubt it. IC = 0.8.

If Palin followed, sould she have more than 3 1/2 minutes? And would she be interrupted less than six times? I doubt it. IC = 1.7.

Individual IC’s mean little. But it is easy to keep records of them. If you do you can easily produce quantitative data, over many interviewers and many months, for example, to show that the BBC persistently gives Conservative politicans and people of the centre and right a much higher IC than Labour / left wing people.

Jaco, 10:35 p.m.
I was lost the longest time with all the Briffa/Yamal/bristlecone/divergence jargon. Finally have got a satisfactory general perspective on it. I really think that the Finnish documentary is a goof place to start as well as a couple of outstanding reports by Marc Sheppard of the AT.
I linked to the Finnish doc above somewhere.

Prof Wibjörn Karlen “climatology” specialized in arctic and antarctic climate.He found as an example the vintertemperatures för Abisko in northern Sweden to be wrong
5 degrees!!!!.You can find his korrespondence with CRU in the leakt e-mails.
His is really pissed off!!

Steve, good interview. Pat Michaels is having way too much fun. Someone needs to
put out a missing persons report out on the team. Fox tried to get the principals
to speak on their own behalf. They at least got Markey, North and Monbiot to
balance things but it looks pretty bad when their front line doesn’t show up.

Myself, I think the may be some finger-pointing going on at the player’s bench.
.
Related: Why did Jones refer to “Mike’s Nature trick” as a trick originating from Mike? Think about that. He didn’t need to say it that way, did he?

My understanding is that it started out back in the late 90’s as a bench brawl, because Briffa wrote a paper which had some caveats about the accuracy of the dendro data, which Mann didn’t like. There’s plenty of back and forth in the earlier emails between Jones, Briffa and Mann. Eventually some olive branches were extended, and ranks were closed for the common cause. They presented a united front through the mid ’00s but with all this, I’d say those relationships are quickly faltering. Hence Mann throwing Jones under the bus recently in the WaPo editorial, and no statements of support for Mann from CRU since it broke. So, if you want to extend the team analogy, there were some problems when the team was formed as the pecking order was worked out, then when they started winning, relations improved. After a bad season (climategate+copenhagen) the team is once again infighting. I suspect it will be the first one to come clean to save their hide that will crack it wide open, particulary if it ends up in a court somewhere. Prisoners dilemna all over again.

I understand the reasoning behind the snip. It looks like a crackpot site if someone is allowed to disprove the IPCC position on global warming form first principles in a few paragraphs. There’s some law that says something that simple and that fundamental just can’t be true.

Remarkably balance I thought, and another very accessible explanation of the real meaning that underlies the phrase “hide the decline”. Hopefully the fact that the IPCC previously acknowledged the LIA and MWP will also start to gain some traction.

I thought M&M came across as very credible, which reflects a huge shift in the presentation of their arguments; the merits have never even been tested. To be fair, most of the others appearing, of whatever persuasion, also seemed fairly credible to some degree.

Bjorn Lomberg is a very effective speaker who, besides being articulate, always keeps his composure and never seems extremist in interviews. His focus on practical solutions helps. Not being a conservative seems to help his message, too. Enjoyed his recent interviews on CNN.

I find it fascinating that both Mann and Jones declined Fox’s request for an interview. Perhaps they just don’t know how to deal with a real inquiry into the basis of their conclusions on climate change. In the past, they’ve always been lauded as experts. Here was a show that was challenging the science behind their claims.

From a public relations point of view, I don’t think this was a wise decision.

Hey folks. I did a couple of quick text searches in the comments but didn’t find the answer so forgive me if I just plain missed it but do we know for sure if FOX will replay this show? I looked at my cable guide but don’t see it on Wednesday. Thanks much.

Patrick Michaels – There is a lot of evidence of the Medieval Warm period, diverse independent streams of Evidence”

Fox – “…McIntyre says Mann’s data and methodology did not allow him to make the claim that current temperatures are in fact warmer than in the Medieval Warm Period….”

Fox to McIntyre – “You believe there is Global warming?”

McIntyre – “Yes”

Fox – “And how bad do you think it is?”

McIntyre – “I dont know whether it is a big problem, a medium, sized problem or a little problem ….”

My question to you Mr McIntyre – Given all that you know now and all that you have studied about Global Warming, In your opinion, can anyone state with certainty that it is a big problem?

McKitrick did a good job too. Here are the parts where he hit home:

On excluding M&M’s paper from the IPCC report:

“You notice there is no discussion of the content, he just says “I am going to use my authority as an IPCC lead author to exclude that information”.” – Touché

Fox – “..just one of the many emails where big name scientists in the field talk of controlling the Peer Review Process – A CORNERSTONE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.” – Great job Fox

Fox – on Mann and Wigley going after journals and editors, on refusing data, on saying they would rather delete it then send it to independent reviewers (you) – Great Job

Fox to McKitrick (on the disagreement of the tree ring proxy with the temp records and using the “fudge factor”) – Do all scientists use this?

McKitrick – “I sure hope not. I mean where would we be in medical science, for instance, if they took all people who died from the medical treatment and just recoded it so that it showed they got better” – Brilliant! Hilarious.

McKitrick – you cant pooh pooh the word “trick” away. The key is “Hide the decline” – thats what the trick is used for – so not an innocent use. – Good he got that across.

Patrick Michaels – gets home the point that privately the scientists do not think “The Science is settled” – problems with both the data and the models – that message is clearly revealed in the emails. – Great Job there.

“I had no idea that Ross and I would feature so prominently in this program. I was expecting our segment to be MUCH shorter – so the extent of coverage was certainly gratifying. But I’ve had enough ups and downs in life not to get too excited – though ups are sure better than downs.”

You have both missed number one this year on Top of the Pops (no pun intended) because its too late to enter. However the X Factor candidate has been ousted by an on line campaign. Which of course must be front page news in the colonies 😉

So the goal next year is for you both to win it. I see you Steve playing acoustic guitar and Ross singing like an angel.

Today Fox news tommorrow world wide concert tours.

Don’t worry about selling out our Gav did it and look where it got him.

You need to get together with a documentarian to film step by step all the issue’s you’ve covered on your blog.

Not only that, but keep the message alive that the Hockey stick, in it’s various iterations, has been debunked. Every time I get into a “debate” about it on other sites, the warmers keep saying McIntyre’s analysis is bogus, and that the HS is robust and accurate.

Actually I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the Fox News treatment of the subject. It’s actually very well done, sticks to facts pretty well and spends considerable time to characterizing the arguments of both sides clearly and intelligably.

Mr McIntyre
In a recent real climate thread the following is asked and answered:

My main questions revolve around the MWP and LIA. Are there peer reviewed articles other than Jones, Briffa, Mann, etc. that do not depend in any way on any ‘team’ member’s articles that also show flat temperatures trends for the past 2000 years ?

[Response: If you define ‘team’ as Steve McIntyre does, meaning anyone that corroborates these results, then obviously no. But the real answer is, yes, of course. Tom Crowley’s paper in Science from about 10 years ago is a nice example, here. Contrary to claims that this paper depends on Mann et al.’s work, it doesn’t. Nor do several other of the figures shown e.g. here, though there is some overlap in the underlying data used. There is no overlap of people or data in the work by Oerlemans, also shown in that figure (as discussed here.–eric]/

I seem to remember that all hockeystick papers depends on either Briffa – Yamal or Mann – bristlecone, am I right or am I jumping to conclusions?

If skeptics were smart they would adopt Steve Mcs line on these things.

Do you believe in Global warming. Yes.

is it a manmade problem? That’s what the science says ( UHI is science boys)

How big a problem? Dunno.

personally, I DO believe in AGW because I believe in radiative physics. But You can believe in AGW as well, UHI is human caused problem.

basically, I suggest that all of you include in your posts.. somewhere.. your belief in AGW.

This tactic is brilliant. I believe in AGW, but..
basically, you take away the term AGW from them by appropriating it to your own devices.

I believe in AGW, but I think we ought to look at cosmic rays. I believe in AGW but. I believe in AGW and I think there is some interesting work in sunspots..
If more of you do this it will drive them crazy. They’ll even find this post and say
its mosher the meme machine at play again hacking the fenton machine for free.

Go ahead try it. There are other huge benefits to this approach of rhetorical appropriation. You will figure them out. I can’t give you the whole playbook.

If everybody believes in AGW, then this transforms into a fight between AGW believers. some certain, others less certain. It DISMANTELS the entire denialist meme from the inside. Many of you who are into denial for pyschological reasons wont be able to don this rhetorical cloak. You should. It’s debate changing. It also unravels their tactic of “banishment” AGW becomes a big tent.

The Swedish TV company SVT has since long a traditional round table debate with each year’s Nobel laureates. This year they also covered a bit of climate research, in reference to the recent Climategate scandal, and scientific honesty. The section starts ca 13.50 into the programme:

I don’t know if this web TV service is available abroad (but I think so). The program is often exported to other TV companies, under the title “Science and Man” and may turn up on a local channel of yours. (The Swedish title “Snillen spekulerar” means “Geniuses speculate”.)

–Ahrvid

Ps. Not that while the term “climategate” isn’t mentioned, the scandal is named this in the Swedish subtitles!

As you may know the people in Haiti is suffering for housing. The solution to the problem is in every import and exporting country. The shipping containers that are stock piled all over the world would make good sturdy temparary housing. These containers are used in almost every plant in the United States and other countries for offices, tool storage buildings etc.